(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.31 2017가단24708

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.31 2017가단24708

보증채무금

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence No. 1 and No. 4 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff concluded a siren contract on December 28, 2012 with the Plaintiff on December 36, 2012: (a) the period of siren 36 months; (b) the acquisition cost of KRW 89,650,00; (c) the monthly siren 2,043,800; and (d) the delayed rate of at least 91 days in arrears; and (b) the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s debt to the Plaintiff; (c) the Plaintiff terminated the siren contract on September 26, 2013 on September 23, 2017; and (c) the Plaintiff’s debt owed under the said siren contract with the Plaintiff may be deemed to have been the sum of KRW 329,250,852,84,197; and (d) the late rate of KRW 185,196.7

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount of the said joint and several liability amounting to KRW 41,190,851 and the principal amounting to KRW 32,295,852 from January 24, 2017 to the day following the date of the final calculation of interest for KRW 32,295,852.

2. On the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff could not comply with the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that the Daegu District Court 2016Da2447 was granted immunity, and that the Plaintiff did not enter the Plaintiff in the obligee’s list in bad faith in the bankruptcy and exemption procedure. Therefore, the instant claim constitutes non-exempt claims.

However, the fact that the Defendant received immunity from the Daegu District Court 2016Gu2447 on January 25, 2017 and the said immunity became final and conclusive on February 9, 2017. However, the fact that the claim of this case was not entered in the creditor list of the above immunity procedure does not conflict between the parties, but it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant did not enter the claim of this case in the creditor list in bad faith only with the statement of the evidence No. 5.

3. The instant lawsuit is concluded.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.14 2017가단5063869

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.12.20 2017가단5136088

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.23 2017가단5083696

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.13 2016가단5286313

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.09 2017가단5006989